Libyan mission racked up $11M in hotel bills

[Mark_Space]

From the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation...

Libyan mission racked up $11M in hotel bills - Politics - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/09/19/libya-mission-costs-hotel.html)

[Red Line Entry]

Complete non-story. Italian bases maxed out, short term alternative needed. Effort concentrated on delivering operational effect, so what's the quickest and easiest (and probably cheapest) way to provide food and accommodation? Rent some hotel rooms.

Do you take a tent when you travel on business?

[VinRouge]

That's the price you pay if you want to do ops I am afraid.

Don't want to pay the bill? Don't go to war.

[Dg800]

Do you take a tent when you travel on business?

This was once quite common when your "business" was a military operation. I guess standards must have changed a lot lately. :E

Ciao,

Dg800

[BEagle]

It sounds like $CAN 11M in International Aid to me. Moreover, that's International Aid which won't be going into some bent dictator's pocket.....

Tents? How awfully lower order. In any case, there's the question of feeding, watering and providing acceptable sanitation for several hundred troops to consider.

Simplest solution? A decent contract with a hotel.

[just another jocky]

Please, not another rant about how it's much more macho to operate out of tents and how girlie we all are in the air force because we do it the sensible way.

It was boring years ago. :zzz:

[brakedwell]

Good job it was only Canadian Dollars :E

[Chris Griffin]

Just to provide some meat to the bones of just another jocky's post, a blunty Lt Col tried to put us in tents but the proposal was rejected due health and safety (noise and mozzies)and ultimately lack of manpower to make tented village work. He then tried to put us in condemned buildings which met similar fate but ONLY due to them being scheduled for demolition.

Every man and his dog tried the same but accom was premium. Canadians had the rough end of the stick having to travel over 2 hrs just to get to work.

Question is do you want the job done safely or not.

[Widger]

Sorry but it is a story because the Carrier Aviation fraternity will be on here and using this as further evidence.

;)

[althenick]

Out of interest what was the Hotel bill for the UK's people? Triied googling it but no joy.

[Fareastdriver]

However much it cost it was a lot cheaper than running an aircraft carrier.

[just another jocky]

And the food was better!

[Backwards PLT]

However much it cost it was a lot cheaper than running an aircraft carrier


What a ridiculous statement. Haven't you read anything Mr Ward has written? Aircraft carriers are virtually free.

[SASless]

Hotel Rooms?

I suppose it was "safer" to put troops all over the place in small bunches in hotels...no security....then drive all sorts of unprotected vehicles to/from "work"....than put them inside a secure area right next to the operation.

Now tell me about the Mozzies again?

The USAF has air conditioned tents now....hell even the Army does that now.

You lot break my heart telling me all about the necessity of living in a hotel, sleeping on white sheets, eating off white table clothes, and using the Squadron silver ware. You you carry along your Serviette Rack so you can have you own mouth wipe too?:ugh:

[just another jocky]

SAS, m8, sometimes you are so full of.....:=

You are usually better than that. :(

[Red Line Entry]

SASless,

No personnel were killed by enemy action in Italy. Therefore the threat assessment that allowed the use of hotel accommodation was correct in exactly the same way as it was correct in 1991. It WAS 'safe'.

You (deliberately) conflate 'need' with 'preference'. We air force types will do whatever 'needs' to be done to achieve the mission; if you ground-pounders 'prefer' to do it the uncomfortable way - crack on.

Agree with JA jocky - your contributions are normally more reasoned - has happy hour started early?

[Chicken Leg]

Just to provide some meat to the bones of just another jocky's post, a blunty Lt Col tried to put us in tents but the proposal was rejected due health and safety (noise and mozzies)
If that's your argument for opting for hotels, then deserve all the criticism that the crabs inevitably get. I'm not saying that hotels wasn't the right option, but I hope those that made that decision, came up with a better justification than noise and mozzies!

[Chris Griffin]

The decision was ultimately made by a 2* army chap. The location of the tented area was to be by the rwy (24 hr ops) and the army doc (who accompanied Lt Col) provided the H & S risk assessment. Any issues - take it up with the brown jobs as a great deal of the AIR campaign was controlled by those with limited appreciation of such. No "crabs" involved unfortunately for you. We were merely thankful common sense prevailed in some areas.

SAS - at no point did anyone mention that it was promulgated as a necessity to stay in hotac - just that all other options were discounted for one reason or another. If you disagree with that decision that is your prerogative. I would merely question your attitude towards your currently serving military colleagues.

[Willard Whyte]

Any fools can be uncomfortable, and usually are.

[just another jocky]

Jealousy is a harsh mistress. :E

[Ken Scott]

Over the past decade I have spent a considerable amount of time living in tents on operations and much less time in hotels. Ellamy made a nice change from the former and reminded me of the 'bring a bottle' wars we used to do! But my point is that the RAF can suffer under canvas if the situation dictates, however in this case it was more practical to utilise hotac. So comments such as

You lot break my heart telling me all about the necessity of living in a hotel, sleeping on white sheets, eating off white table clothes, and using the Squadron silver ware. You you carry along your Serviette Rack so you can have you own mouth wipe too?

are just ill-informed garbage.

[orca]

Genuine question. As we rebrigaded into Expeditionary Air Wings some time ago, did any investment go into the provision of tented/ mobile accomodation and support services or is there a standing assumption that we will deployUK FW only onto well found bases with either barracks or nearby hotel accomodation?

I feared the EAW thing was a bit of politically motivated re-branding but am more than happy to be proved wrong.

[Backwards PLT]

The reality is that although it suits the agendas of the other services to portray the RAF as pampered and under worked, the issue is usually driven by aircraft and logistics.

Anyone who has worked on fast jets knows that they are temperamental and need cosseting. Extremes of climate (hot/cold/wet) will quickly make your deployed "wing" useless if they aren't properly protected. In addition there is the matter of logistics. FJ that are warfighting use fuel, weapons and spares at a prodigous rate. You add in the need for a runway to take-off from and all these factors mean you can't deploy to a hide site somewhere in the woods.

I'm sure that you could scour google and think up a scenario where the eng/logs/airfield requirements are filled but there is no accom but it is unlikely to happen, although if it did then the crews would just crack on with it. As another poster said it is all a matter of need and has been proved many, many times in the recent past.

Personally I think that we should look after our people and provide decent accommodation, it is basic leadership, not to mention common sense. If I am flying an aircraft I would prefer it if the guys that worked on it were provided the best rest possible in whatever circumstances they found themselves in. If you are on the ground and an aircraft is throwing weapons around I would suggest a rested and happy crew is far more desirable than a tired and pissed off one. Similarly if you are a pax in our mighty AT or rotary fleets.

Sorry, that was a bit of a rant but people regurgitating the same tired old mantra irritates me.

Orca - Don't know if the EAWs do, probably not, but the JFAC HQ does. Does the RN MCC HQ?

[Easy Street]

orca,

UK EAWs and FJ units practice deploying to and operating from tented accomodation and operations sites on Ex DEPLOYED TITAN, which is the UK in-house version of a NATO OPEVAL. Not sure when the last one happened - might be a couple of years ago now - but it does happen, usually at Fairford.

Quibbles about costs of MT are just as petty as some of the hotel-bashing. Simple: if you are worried about a £m here or there, don't go bombing countries 1500nm+ from home...!

[orca]

I don't think we have a MCC HQ. If you mean the Maritime Battle Staff (from whom a MCC HQ would invariably be picked), they occasionally parade around in camouflage but I have never found out why, after all their back drop is very unlikely to feature temperate vegetation. They also keep a bergen ready due to being at R2, as apparently you can't get home to pack in the 5 days available.

I'm not entirely sure that what they do has any relevance when compared to a simple question as to whether or not we had actually invested in tents. But I suppose this is pprune and one must either take offence or assume agenda whenever possible.

Personally I am outraged but if someone could tell me why and about what that would make Friday night far simpler.

Cheers.

[orca]

A quick re-attack if I may.

I've always quite liked the JFAC 'battle tent' or what ever they call it, but never really understood the need for it. After all the free world is littered with CAOCs and armed with a secure telephone, ICC and something like NSWAN surely one can pump out an ATO to anyone in the world...what am I missing?

And yes, you are correct, I am genuinely questioning why the JFAC practises living in tents vice the more traditional 'why the RAF doesn't'.

[althenick]

Thanks for all the informative replies....


.... Ah sorry plenty of pontification and posturing about requirement etc but no figs.

Sometimes I think this site should be called the Political Prat's ranting Network

[lj101]

Althenick


BBC News - Cost of UK operations in Libya (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13905914)

[The Old Fat One]

Pretty much a word-for-word quote from kipper fleet 2 star circa 1999

"We have to do tents. Makes no economic, or security, sense (SAS et al please note), but if we don't do it, we gonna get put in the spotlight and binned"

Glad that worked out then :uhoh:

[dalek]

In 2002 I spent most of my final few months in the Air Force living in tents in Muscat and Thumrait.
In Thumrait it was unavoidable because of a genuine shortage of accommodation.
In Muscat it would been possible to take over the Novotel, just outside the main gate at Seeb. It would have cost far less than than all the equipment and personnel required to keep the camp going.
But to show solidarity with our bretheren across the water the tent city stayed.
So you could work a nineteen hour day, flying across five time zones, on minimum crew rest and possibly have to repeat the process the following day.
During the night, you would have crews on diffent flights moving around with lights on and off all the time.
From the Flight Safety point of view it was lunacy, and as we pointed out several times, in gross breach of a GASO.

[Easy Street]

althenick,

Spending public money always has and always will involve politics. What else do you expect, seriously?

[lj101]

Dalek

We probably shared a tent as from memory there was circa 34 of us in there. Getting dressed in the dark produced some interesting sights on occasion.
The fury when the SS exercise aircrew in the tent next door managed to nick our well hidden stash of happy juice. That lovely admin Sgt, he was a helpful chap wasn't h?
Having said all that, i did enjoy BFOT life once I got used to it and prefered it in some ways to individual hotel life.


Would I want to do it again, er, mmmmm.

[dalek]

101
Two months to go in RAF. I cadged a lift to the gate, walked to the Novotel and negotiated for a room. About £20. Great nights sleep, pool, plus tennnis court, plus bar.
Looked out at the peasants roughing it.
Pity Auntie Betty didn,t pay

[Gullwings]

Have the RAF become the ‘London Bankers’ of the military world and lost touch with reality? The government statement that ’We are all in it together’ certainly does not appear to exist in many parts of the RAF.

At the best of times that would not be good for joint service teamwork and morale, however in the current financial climate it is even more annoying to hear the RAF constantly trying to justify why they must have things that the other services have been used to doing without in the good times, let alone during the current very bad financial times.

It is about time that the Government wake up and redirect more of their limited resources to those UK armed forces that have not lost touch with reality and appreciate that they belong to an armed force rather than those expecting to be treated like VIP airline staff.

If you do not like aircraft noise, mosquitos, tents, going away from home (unless you have a nice hotel) and must have top notch Health & Safety conditions, then you really should not be in the armed forces. There are many people out there in the other forces who have a more focussed and realistic ‘can do’ attitude and who would be willing to take on your roles with much better flexibility and teamwork.

The RAF PR machine knows that, and that is why their mission for so long appears to have been to try and get rid of the Fleet Air Arm fixed wing force. Thankfully other world Governments who have Harriers/other Navy fixed wing aircraft have not allowed their land based Air Forces to con them into getting rid of their carrier based fixed wing capability. This even includes Italy (despite their current severe financial hardships), as highlighted in the following website: - A tale of two Harriers: How Italy held on to carrier strike - Defence Management (http://www.defencemanagement.com/feature_story.asp?id=20709)

[BEagle]

The RAF PR machine knows that, and that is why their mission for so long appears to have been to try and get rid of the Fleet Air Arm fixed wing force.

Fishead paranoia again. It simply isn't true.

As for the rest of your ridicuous tirade, it simply doesn't merit a reply. Because it's total bolleaux!

[Redcarpet]

Gullwings, you obviously come from the same stable as the Senior Officer in Muscat who, as part of a morale boosting speech, uttered the immortal line ' don't try and black mail me with flight safety' :ugh::ugh:

[Vie sans frontieres]

Looked out at the peasants roughing it.


I think 'plebs' is the insult of choice at the moment. :ok:

[vascodegama]

If I recall he was one of the 2 Senior Officers involved in the Mull episode.

Perhaps a reply to him should have been-the blackmail is not coming up the tree sir!

[Backwards PLT]

Not often I totally agree with BEagle, but on this occasion I am forced to do so.

[Easy Street]

Superb rant. BZ :ok:

Cost - you would be surprised. The Army set up a tent city at Davis Monthan AFB a few years ago for an Apache exercise, and spent more in doing so than it would have cost to accommodate the entire det in the USAF's very cheap on-base accommodation. Considering they were training for HERRICK, where their accommodation is in air-conditioned blocks, it struck me as classic practice bleeding.

As for Gioia, one of the reasons why a tent city wasn't built is that the (high) cost of the groundworks required to avoid a quagmire would only be recouped over a certain period - and at the start of the operation, when the decision was being made, the detachment was not forecast to be long enough to make the expenditure worthwhile. These decisions were made on the advice of Royal Engineers from J4...

[Chris Griffin]

Ok I'll bite.

"If you do not like aircraft noise, mosquitos, tents, going away from home (unless you have a nice hotel) and must have top notch Health & Safety conditions, then you really should not be in the armed forces".

Whatever conditions we are happy to contend with is realistically not a decision for us to make. We have to abide by rules and regs dictated to us such as retrospectively being hit for field living conditions which meant we all had to pay back a few hundred pounds for the privilege of being on OPS. Do you honestly think a mere SO2 can say to ACC "sorry sunshine but there's no HOTAC so I dont think we'll be playing today". If the army chaps decided tents would happen, we would have lived in tents - simples.

The naivete of some posting on this thread is truly breathtaking. In aviation there are specific rules which determine what is safe and acceptable practice in peacetime and during conflict. All we require is sufficient amenities to do our job. I too was in Muscat when those words were uttered, but the fact remains would you want someone who has had no rest for 24-48 hrs flying you or your chaps back to the UK with a/c tech snags and especially poor weather? If your answer is yes then you are a fool and a danger to those around you.

"All in this together" is not sufficient reason to put lives at risk, and shows an inherent unwillingness to understand the roles the RAF undertakes and the peculiar risks associated with them. Leave aviation to those that understand it.

[Genstabler]

Leave aviation to those that understand it.
Well that sums it up in RAF terms, doesn't it! You've got to laugh, haven't you!

[FODPlod]

..."All in this together" is not sufficient reason to put lives at risk, and shows an inherent unwillingness to understand the roles the RAF undertakes and the peculiar risks associated with them. Leave aviation to those that understand it.

That's us told. :hmm:

So in your view, it appears that fatigue (and the requirement for hotel standard accommodation) is a much less significant issue for sailors responsible for submarine or ship safety or for soldiers and booties responsible for large calibre guns, missiles, small arms, grenades, explosives and other weapons systems (not to mention EOD & IEDD).

Do you seriously believe that RAF personnel are the only people to have "peculiar risks" associated with their roles?

[orca]

Are we genuinely saying then, that in the year 2012 it is impossible to purchase a portable sleeping system that by dint of air conditioning and mosquito netting is sufficiently comfortable to afford decent crew rest?

What's our 'austere base' plan then or don't we have one?

If we do have one, how often do our tent putter uppers, practice?

I would like to be the first to say that I understand aviation and am more than happy if it is all left to me.;)

[Gullwings]

I expected the usual RAF crowd to leap straight back with their typical automatic dismissive pro-RAF defensive statements and distractions. Hopefully the true neutrals out there can read what I and the linked magazine article have said and make their own judgements.

I know nothing about your Senior Officers incident in Muscat but no doubt if the circumstances mentioned are correct then they may well be very valid and understandable in that particular example? However, I am also very familiar with both military and civil aviation Flight Safety in many different aspects and organisations, and not just a one service background. Whilst of course nice hotels, lovely recreation facilities and quality sleep are obviously good for aviation Safety it is not always essential for everyone. Many other forces personnel are used to working and living in very hazardous environments for extremely long periods without the provision or need for such hotels to do their critical jobs safely, effectively and efficiently.

Everyone wants the best that they can get from their employers but the RAF generally appear to always expect and get more than the other UK forces. Good luck to them but at a time of such big cuts there should be a much more level playing field for everyone and that may also help the RAF lose it’s pampered image which whether you like it or not it has had for a long time now.

As for not really needing to properly train using field type living conditions, not every conflict that this country faces may always be so one-sided that hotels can always be relied on in the future, just because of our recent conflict/war experiences. As we all know, military airfield facilities and power supplies are some of the first things to get taken out during wars. One day we may be on the receiving end of such attacks, but I certainly hope not as the RAF fixed wing guys may not be used to living and working in such harsh conditions!

[althenick]

LJ
Thanks for the link mate, Sort of sums it up quite nicely. The hotel Bill seem entirely reasonable for the length of time however the operating costs are a bit worrying.
Why does a newish Typhoon cost Twice as much as a Shagged Tonka to run?

How much did the harrier cost/hour?

Easy
As an ex-MOD Junior Project Manager, I'm well aware That any money spend involves politics (Ususally MoD Politics :hmm:) Which is why I left and rejoined private Industry.

[FODPlod]

One can't help but wonder how the delicate sensitivities of RAF personnel regarding their sleeping conditions might affect their demeanour on board a ship lurching around in a sea way while subject to the ambient noise of propulsion machinery, generators, various pumps, rotating antennae, active sonar, AC plant, loudspeaker announcements, aircraft landing on deck and slamming hatches.

Mind you, personnel serving in ships tend not to turn off the lights at 1600 and go home for tea, stickies and all night in. ;)

[The Old Fat One]

automatic dismissive pro-RAF defensive statements and distractions


And of course your discourse is neutral, factually flawless and without adgenda...my arse!

Do we stay in tents for economic reasons...nope, not even close.

Do we stay in tents for operational reasons...nope, not even close.

Do we stay in tents for security reasons...sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Do we stay in tents for political/PR reasons...yep, we sure do.

And are we to be denigrated for pointing this out...only by the intellectually challenged with an axe to grind.


Mind you, personnel serving in ships tend not to turn off the lights at 1600 and go home for tea, stickies and all night in


Amusing...I spent a week on T23 once, the whole ship went mental because they thought they were not going to get alongside on a Friday before the dockies knocked off. Worked with a CPO at HQ once...he organised his shift to do a straight 48 hours on duty, so he could then take a fortnight off. Of course, he spent 36 hours of his shift in a bunk.

[orca]

The Harrier cost per hour was similar, £32k I seem to recall.

In fairness you can be very manipulative with costs. If you wanted it to look cheap you would count just the expendables, (fuel, oil, hyds, tyres) if you needed it to look expensive (for example if the civvies wanted to put some CAS close to the MOB and you felt it would add a few minutes to each and every sortie) then you could get the cost up to about £102k...including maintainer's boot laces etc etc.

[dalek]

Fodplod
Not sure of the point you are trying to make. Poor crew rest facilities can lead to accidents, proven fact. Doesn't matter if you are operating a C130, Typhoon or driving a bus.
Rest for all Aircrew is more critical than for most other trades because Aircrew do not have the option of pulling over, switching off the engine and taking a break. Emergencies happen in real time and have to be dealt with immediately.
I accept, that when essential for an operation, normal crew rest regs must be waived. However, that should not be a carte blanche excuse for providing anything less than the best available.
I remember that during my time in Oman, some normal peacetime regs had been waived in writing (MTOW and CDT).
Crew rest guidlines were never changed. That meant that every flight authorised, where crew had less than adequate rest facilities, were technically in breach of a GASO. I don't think there was Major Incident requiring a BOI, so the matter was never tested.
I wonder what support the likes of Sir William W would have given to the crew if it ever was?

[Whenurhappy]

Attitudes have clearly changed over the last 11 years.

I was at PSAB shortly after 9/11 and the CAOC was ramped up in numbers as the USAF and the RAF were running two operations from it. Most AT was provided by the venerable VC-10 and the occasional Tri-Star, but on one occasion we had a C-17 land and run out of crew-duty time, because of earlier delays with Saudi Customs clearance.

The crew, complete with wheelie Samsonites, demanded to be taken to a hotel, even though we had made available hardened, air-conditioned en-suite accommodation for the crew, by turfing permanent party out of their rooms. When we pointed out that OBL's mother lived in the local town (and the family owned the hotels there), the crew relented, but Boy, did they grumble!

Fast forward 11 years and the crews would think nothing of a tent and would dream of the accn that was available in the FFHC at PSAB.

[FODPlod]

...Amusing...I spent a week on T23 once, the whole ship went mental because they thought they were not going to get alongside on a Friday before the dockies knocked off.

Yep, even sailors get the occasional weekend in their base port when not deployed (if the 'dockies' haven't knocked off until Monday morning owing to an overtime ban) but even this doesn't necessarily mean they get home. At best, only the non-watchkeepers will be granted leave. At worst, the ship will require everyone to remain on board for a 'fast cruise' (alongside training period), essential maintenance, ammunitioning, storing ship, etc.

...Worked with a CPO at HQ once...he organised his shift to do a straight 48 hours on duty, so he could then take a fortnight off. Of course, he spent 36 hours of his shift in a bunk.

Is that what he told you? :)

If you mean watch-keeping, then the standard shoreside routine is 1-in-4 anyway (i.e. 12 hours on/36 off over a 48 hour period - it helps make up for all those times at sea working 1-in-2 in Defence Watches) plus routine part-of-ship day work. His "fortnight off" must have been unspent main leave (e.g. Easter or Christmas) as he certainly wouldn't have been entitled to such a long spell after only two days on. That sounds more like the RAF's 16 and 4 Rule.

Incidentally, what HQ do you mean? Only civilians work "shifts". Sailors stand 'watches', soldiers and booties 'stag on' while all perform 'duties'. Which are/were you? ;)

[Chris Griffin]

I would never dare be so bold to criticize the way you do business on boats or on the ground as it would be arrogant and assuming of me to do so, as I have no knowledge of your working environment. Its astounding that you don't afford the same courtesy and attempt to assume greater knowledge based on a moral high ground of the argument that the other Services sleep in inferior conditions, despite the fact that it costs more.

FODplod - the fact you compare looking after secured and inanimate weaponry with the duty of care of over 230 pax is comical. By the way, peculiar: belonging exclusively to some person, group, or thing. At no time have i suggested others do not face risks peculiar to their role. You merely don't seem capable of accepting there are risks inherent to our role.

Look at the fact that BALPA are campaigning against plans to increase civilian Flight Time Limits over and above the 13 hours currently allowed over significant safety concerns. Crew duty periods for mil aircrew can in some circumstances exceed 13 hours by a huge margin. If you don't want your family on a flight crewed by pilots with a 13 hr working day, why would you want your comrades to face that risk just so the crew can sleep in tents to keep the army and navy happy?

It would appear that those that doubt the need for proper rest facilities and quality rest for aircrew (note no requirement for 5 * HOTAC or recreational facilities) do indeed have agendas whether they be merely envy or pushing the carrier argument. I would have sincerely hoped that the safety of your colleagues would merit more of your thought.

[Chicken Leg]

Pretty much a word-for-word quote from kipper fleet 2 star circa 1999

"We have to do tents. Makes no economic, or security, sense (SAS et al please note), but if we don't do it, we gonna get put in the spotlight and binned"

Glad that worked out then

This is the crux of the problem. If there is a genuine argument for hotel accommodation, whether it be on financial, operational or security grounds, then do the right then, but be prepared to justify it. If this is a true and accurate quote, then I would suggest that this particular 2* could not justify the requirement for anything other tents - if he could, then he wouldn't have had to use the "spotlight" argument.

This goes for the RAF too (all three services, in fact). There's nothing wrong with choosing a more expensive option, as long as it can be justified without embarrassment.

Like I said in a previous post, if the justification for this particular example was noise and mozzies, then you deserve all the unwelcome attention you're getting. I suspect that there was much better and more relevant reasons for choosing hotac on this occasion, so for God's sake, just state them.

Having been in aviation for around 20 years, I can assure you that I understand the importance of flight safety, including in operation environments, but it's very true that the RAF use the FS card as a catch all to make arguments against decisions that they don't like. Therefore, I can understand how those that perhaps don't understand FS quite so well, often liken the issue to the little boy crying wolf.

[glojo]

Sorry but it is a story because the Carrier Aviation fraternity will be on here and using this as further evidence.I'll take the plunge.

The few RAF aircraft that took part in this operation only did so after the US provided the services of their F-18 Growler aircraft and IF..

If we were provided with a proper aircraft carrier then this ship would have been deployed just thirty miles or so off the coast, and with its limited air wing it would have had the Growler and multiple F-18's to carry out multiple, daily missions.

The RAF did the job they were asked but how many aircraft could they deploy to Italy, how many times did any of these aircraft have to divert to a neutral country because of technical issues? How much did it cost? How many private contractors were hired to regularly ferry all the requirements of this forward deployed unit?

I only want what is best for my country and do NOT give a flying fig the colour of any uniform worn by the pilots. Bottom line is the flying suit is the same shade of green. We cannot congratulate ourselves regarding that deployment when it simply highlighted our short comings when asked to act without US support.

To those that say the carrier might not be in the right place at the right time, I simply say the carrier is quicker than your Eddie Stobart options . ;) plus of course there is usually a build up to a state of conflict which will be when the carrier will get the orders to deploy.

To me this thread highlights why we should have aircraft carriers, I cannot feel sorry for our brylcreem boys wanting undisturbed beauty sleep, as in any conflict, sleep is an optional extra which may or may not be high on any list of human needs and if those naughty aeroplanes make too much noise when we try to sleep then buy these (http://files.blog-city.com/files/F05/96779/p/f/mask.jpg) :) :ok:

[orca]

The simple fact is that we can't get past entrenched inter service views with this one.

It would appear that if you are in the RAF then temporary accomodation isn't good enough to afford crew rest (which we all know should be protected to the utmost extent possible) and is in some cases only going to cost more than hotels anyway.

If you aren't then you can't see how a modern system could be insufficiently comfortable and suspect hotels would be more expensive in the long run. You would also like to know what the pan-service plan is for KAF 2 (the revenge) when there is no festering hotel!

So until someone figures out how much we'd save or otherwise we don't really have a debate, just a slanging match.

Oh and incidentally - for you crew rest enthusiasts out there. I know what the evidence says and I know what the rules say. However, 1 Gp crew rest ASOs for CVS operations were different to shore based....so you ended up asking yourself the question 'Why?' as if it was safe 'embarked' why wasn't it safe 'ashore'?

[Vie sans frontieres]

But glojo, haven't you heard? We're broke. The highly respected Robert Chote of the OBR virtually said as much. And when we eventually do get the two new aircraft carriers a few years from now, we'll be even more broke. It ain't good but we're just going to have to get used to it. Things ain't what they were.

[VinRouge]

Simple fact is, SoS requires as far as reasonably practicable, that mil crew duty regs have to be as stringent as civil ones. I suspect this is due to the fact we very often fly in civil airspace in support of ops.

If you are based well away from the action, and decent accommodation is available, why not base crews somewhere comfortable? our crew duty limits are long enough already without having to unnecessarily suck it up with the det.

Or are these self licking lollipops that spring up around the bizarres more about demonstrating trades and branches are operationally required when really they are not when you have crews located in hotac. Certainly no need for tac admin, fs discips and the plethora of other unnecessary and more importantly expensive hangers on that seem to ruin dets when they appear?

I do wonder whether these dwr posts are morew about demonstrating their respective trades or branches are operationally essential, when the simple truth is we could operate at half the cost if they stayed at home.

[Jumping_Jack]

I suspect much of the issue surrounded the complete lack of planning for the start of the Op, the complete dismissal of the CAG process and the fact that the Loggies were prevented from being represented on the recce. Of course it would have been possible to set up a perfectly comfortable tented camp. However, these things do not spring up overnight and require a considerable amount of prep, in terms of ground preparation (by the RE), shipping of the tented camp, infrastructure and building time. This Op was due to be a swift starter hence the quick and easy answer to go into available HOTAC. That all assumes that the MOD possesses a tented camp that is available after previous purchases have been trashed while on other ops!

[VinRouge]

And the subtle point that contracted billing arrangements (portakabins and power generation sets) cost twice as much even on a long term basis that the equivalent cost of putting crews downtown. Seen the cost of 1 MWh on a short term contract basis? It's not cheap.

[just another jocky]

...I cannot feel sorry for our brylcreem boys wanting undisturbed beauty sleep...

Which clearly demonstrates:

a. your inherent prejudices
b. your apparent lack of understanding of the points made in this and innumerable other interminable threads about RAF/hotels, Army/tents & Navy/carriers or (and I suspect this is nearer the truth) your unwillingness to engage in an adult fashion.

Should I likewise continue this childish slanging match by saying that I cannot feel sorry for our navy pilots who rarely get a full nights sleep due to the lack of nearby hotels (I do actually feel sorry for them as I have tried to sleep on a carrier and failed)? I am slightly less sorry when they pull up alongside at the various exotic ports they visit but then neither do I give them a hard time about this....it's all part of the job and I hope they get to see many.

It reduces you and your arguments when you continually engage in this debate in the manner you, and so many others do.

I do agree, however, that the RAF side of the story has been soured by far too many jobsworth crews who push the rules to the limits in the manner described earlier.

I have operated my GR1/4 from tented, barrack (multi-occupancy) and hotel accomodation before you ask. I know which I prefer and which I consider safer (from an ability to do my job properly perspective) but ultimately I go where I am told.

[CrabInCab]

Even the quality of tent matters!

Bardufoss a good while back, AAC and RAF pitch up to join the RN party. End of course deployment out into the field and the RAF rock up with 12x12s but crucially Arctic liners and heaters. Teeny Weeny turn up with their 12 man bell tents, we're used to operating in the field we don't need plush tents, typical crabs etc. :rolleyes:

That night the temperature drops, as forecast, to -21 deg C. Following morning RAF crews sleeping in lined, heated tents = full night sleep and full days tasking. AAC managed about 1 hour sleep per man, not wishing to "lose face" declared themselves fit to fly and within a couple of hours decide to create their own nordic skiing tracks with a Lynx hockey stick!

Strangely enough the following night the AAC crews could be found sleeping in the RAF rec tent, ops tent indeed anywhere but their own bell tents.

[Chicken Leg]

Teeny Weeny turn up with their 12 man bell tents, we're used to operating in the field we don't need plush tents, typical crabs etc.

Your recollection of the events suggests that Teeny Weeny had heated and lined tents available to them, but decided to show you how to do it man style? My recollection of such exercises is that if the AAC were fortunate enough to be able to find around half the tents they needed, they were doing well. They wouldn't even have known that liners and heaters were an option!

Nobody is criticising the RAF for having the right kit when needed - they're very good at that. More that in spite of this, they fight tooth and nail not to use it.

[glojo]

But glojo, haven't you heard? We're broke. The highly respected Robert Chote
of the OBR virtually said as much. And when we eventually do get the two new
aircraft carriers a few years from now, we'll be even more broke. It ain't good
but we're just going to have to get used to it. Things ain't what they were.
I agree and if we cannot afford them we should NOT even build them.

If this Libyan mission offered the best value for money then so be it, but was it the best value for money or a case of this is all we have and we need it in theatre as quickly as possible regardless of cost??

[BEagle]

It would appear that if you are in the RAF then temporary accomodation isn't good enough to afford crew rest (which we all know should be protected to the utmost extent possible) and is in some cases only going to cost more than hotels anyway.

'Temporary' accommodation should be temporary, but has a habit these days of becoming rather permanent....:confused:

[Vie sans frontieres]

I don't have the figures to hand but somehow it became more expensive to cancel them. But that's another thread I think. Sorry, back to the squabbling.

[orca]

Interesting posts about cost of temporay accomodatioin. I don't think the 'you're in the military - you have to rough it' school of thought holds water if the cost of temporary accomodation, its upkeep etc actually works out greater than hotel accomodation.

I personally believe we should maintain and exercise the capability of a 'temporary solution' (note no use of word tent), that allows for adequate crew rest if we are to consider ourselves expeditionary.

[just another jocky]

I don't think anyone (no, not even RAF) could disagree with that orca.

[Ken Scott]

As the saying goes, 'Any fool can be uncomfortable'. Roughing it for its own sake, particularly if it is actually more expensive to set up a large tented encampment than to utilise available hotac as was the case on Ellamy is risible.

I have spent many months sleeping in tented accomodation in the Iraqi desert in excruciating summer temperatures (40 degrees C due to inadequate aircon) which combined with 24 hour ac noise made sleeping a major issue. I often flew long days & nights dangerously fatigued but it was an operational zone & for the most part it was operational airspace. On Ellamy we were trucking to/ from the UK in GAT where the civvies' duty rules are a great deal tougher than our own & they'd be less than impressed to discover that they were sharing airspace with tired mil pilots.

The tired old banter of 'pampered brylcream boys' does not match my experiences of today's RAF which has changed radically from the 'Samsonite Warriors' I joined too long ago & if I thought it was written in jest, as good banter should be, I wouldn't have a problem. Trotting out this outdated vitriol to support a carrier agenda or whatever personal chip on the shoulder the individual is trying to push saddens me as the three services should really be working together to preserve some capabilities for the future.

Divided we fall.

[Engines]

Ken and Others,

After some reflection I thought I might be able to add something to this thread.

My own experience of the RAF's approach to accommodation on detachments and ops (gained from several deployments with them and a few years at Strike) was that there was a general tendency to push very hard indeed to get the very best deal that could be obtained for their aircrew. In principle, no one could really argue with that, and I will freely admit that there were times that I would have liked my own service (the RN) to have fought as hard to get similar deals for my support teams. I also agree that flight safety is an important factor, and that adequate crew rest is important.

But there have been many times when I have seen the RAF turn down perfectly suitable accommodation, already in use by other services, and demand (and I do mean demand) their 'own' accommodation. The reasons given have been many and various, ranging from 'JSP approved accommodation scales' (used by a visiting F3 unit to refuse using our own air station's accommodation) to 'GASO compliance' all the way to 'flight safety'. Being told that 'your accommodation might be OK for your ratings but it's not good enough for my chaps' and then being invited to sign an RAF 'waiver form' so that the detachment can go and find a 'decent hotel' is not, in my admittedly old fashioned view, a very collegiate way to go about things.

During preparation for one major exercise in the Middle East, I was told that special air conditioning units had to provided for the temporary accommodation being set up. (This finding, incidentally, followed two very well staffed 'recon' visits by HQ staff to the base we were deploying to - a well found and fully operational air station - the cost of these alone was eye watering). This air conditioning, I was told, would be for aircrew only due to cost limits. I enquired why maintainers' accommodation should not benefit from the same treatment - in my view, the flight safety arguments for line personnel working out in the heat all day were just as strong as those for aircrew. I was overruled. Two days in, we received a strong complaint from the deployed aircrew - the noise of the air con units was apparently keeping them awake. You could not make it up. (You also couldn't make up the fact that our aircraft had no bombs for the first three days of the exercise - but we flew the hours anyway, so that was judged to be all right).

I certainly don't propose that people should be made deliberately tired so as to 'practice bleeding' - but I honestly feel that some elements of the RAF ( fast jet aircrew were the ones I encountered - there might be others) were prone to indulge in some selective 'shroud waving' about flight safety to get what they considered to be their rightful benefits. Not nice to watch.

The biggest problem with this attitude is that it costs money that the MoD no longer has. Every pound counts, and the RAF is supposed to be fully equipped and ready to go 'expeditionary'. Like many other contributors to this thread, I find staying in hotels is hard to reconcile with that 'expeditionary' tag. I find the USMC to be a good yardstick for 'expeditionary' ops, but am happy to admit the opinions of others.

By way of contrast, the RAF SH force has often, in my direct experience, shown a strong 'all of one company' ethos, has been ready to operate from truly bare bases to get the job done, and doesn't go out of its way to point out how special it is. That's my view, for what it's worth.

One response to Ken Scott - yes, all three services should be working together. Nice sentiment. I suggest that you relay this sentiment to the RAF Air Officers who have spent the last few years doing their damndest to undermine, delay or plain disobey the clear direction given them by the Government on transfer of assets and joint operations. Oh, and perhaps a public abandonment of 'Project Trenchard' (RAF's objective to gain ownership of all UK military air assets by 2018) might help.

Once again, for the record. I have spent many years working with the RAF and will continue to pay tribute to their professionalism and expertise. I believe in a capable and expeditionary RAF, and do not seek to denigrate it's achievements. But the RAF leadership's determination to become the sole owners of 'air power' by seizing control of Army and Navy assets has done real damage to the UK's efforts to rebalance its forces. I just hope it stops soon.

Best Regards as ever to all those, whatever uniform and in whatever accommodation, actually doing the job in danger's way.

Engines

[Genstabler]

Good post Engines! BZ as you apparently say in the Navy.

[Bob Viking]

A well structured post from Mr Engines. The only point I would take issue with is the part about FJ aircrew being the most precious. It's a great stereotype that everyone loves to believe but in my experience is not wholly accurate (the beauty of freedom of thought- we don't all have to agree). By way of example I offer the following. Cyprus to Thumrait trail involving 5 hours of flying in pretty warm weather. I and my buddies in single seat jets with no autopilot and truckie mates in their mobile petrol stations with galley, toilets etc. Who do you think squinnied about the transit accommodation and got moved to hotels in Limassol? Based on an argument of flight safety and crew rest. The joke of it is that the extra drive will have denied them at least an hours sleep.
Now this may look like I'm having a dig at truckie mates (and we should never really pass up the opportunity) but the reality is that if they managed to wangle a good deal then I say good luck to them. It's a little bit pathetic to act like a spoiled child and shout about how unfair it is. We should just try a little harder to get ourselves a better deal next time.
My final thought is that our biggest bases in theatre have no HOTAC available currently and everyone lives in pretty much the same standard of accommodation. The Libya situation was a short term solution. Tornados and Typhoons can't fly from boats (I say that deliberately) and something needed to be sorted in short order. HOTAC worked. Problem solved.
I think what I'm trying to say is grow up and get over it.
BV

[Vie sans frontieres]

Enough said. Wise words Bob Viking and Engines. Now drop it!

[dalek]

Engines

Flight Safety is an all encompassing term open to many interpretations.
GASO is a Group Air Staff Order. Compliance is not optional.
Either your accommodation on base complied with the GASO or it didn't?
If it didn't, then what you did with your own on base personnel is irrelevant.

[Engines]

Dalek,

Thanks for coming back. Yes, I know very well where GASOs sit in the scheme of things, but they certainly don't apply to other services' air stations. My point (perhaps not clearly made, for which I apologise) was that turning down perfectly suitable accommodation on the grounds that 'our GASOs allow us to use a hotel' is not, in my view an acceptable way to go about military business. My direction was always to use Service accommodation if it was available - along the lines of 'when in Rome'.

Sadly, that didn't seem to be the case for some ( by no means all) RAF people I have encountered.

By the way, I did not mean to single out the FJ fraternity - as I said, they were the ones I had direct experience of. A couple of years at Strike meant that I heard plenty of stories about other 'badges' but I try to stick to facts.

Best regards as ever

Engines

[Red Line Entry]

Never quite understood the vitriol about Samsonite suitcases. While they are completely impractical for yomping across the Falklands, they're bloody great at keeping sand and water off your clothes in a 12 x 12 on a Deployed Operating Base!

[dalek]

Hi Engines

A long time since I looked but I don't remember GASO's ever specifying HOTAC or on base.
I do remember them giving preferred minimums or failing that "best available".
For most operations GASO's were modified.
I gave the example of C130 in Gulf 1 and 2.
CDT was extended from 16 to 19 hours. MTOW was upped for some flights from 155 to 175,000lbs.
That was in writing, so authorisers could use these modifications and stay in the clear.
The accommodation requirements were never changed.
Any authorising officer who did not obtain the best available accommodation for his crew, whether on base, or a five star hotel, was a fool.

[Red Line Entry]

The Queen is inspecting 3 armed forces personnel, one from each of her Services.

She asks each one what they would do if they woke up and found a camel spider in their tent on operations?

The squaddie says, "I'd reach over, grab my bayonet and stab it to death!"

The matelot says, "I'd reach over, grab my boot and batter it to death !"

The airman says, "I'd reach over, pick up my phone, call reception and ask

"Who the f*** has put a tent up in my hotel room?"



(acknowlegments to ARRSE)

[Party Animal]

Speaking of deployments with the mighty 'Rod' and adding to the above. just after 9/11, I well remember operating from a desert base - not far from Carrefor, in recently erected 12 x 12's. They had no windows, no aircon and the daily shower was a do it yourself black bag!

Then, I remember camping out close to the main runway at Thumrait. My body physically shook as the fully tooled up B1's launched at 0300 every morning with full on reheat. No chance of sleeping through those puppies, I can tell you.

I also have to say that the Samsonite was great at keeping out the dust etc. but the whells on mine were never the same after wheeling the thing through 500 yards of sand before arriving at the tent.

Oh and GASOs went out the window. As the FS visitor from HQ STC said at the time. If anyone really wants to complain, we will just re-write GASO's to match real world ops.

Good days......:)

[glojo]

Who here would seriously prefer living in a tent if they had the chance of a nice hotel bed? If the hotel is an option then form a queue behind me :)

[Widger]

Well,

I had a very nice time staying at this Hotel 4-star hotel in Vicenza: Hotel Villa Michelangelo Colli Berici Vicenza (http://www.royaldemeure.com/hotel_villa_michelangelo/eng/hotel_resort_vicenza_veneto.html)
courtesy of the RAF, some years ago when there was a flap on in the Balkans.

One could say, 'it was a little over the top' and 'the Holiday Inn would have sufficed'! Things have changed a little since then (JPA and Hogg Robinson) and most crabs are now used to living in tents in various places or on a bunk in a boat anyway. As others have stated, those days are gone and they would just not get away with that sort of extravagance these days, which came about because of 'rates' and Squadron staff being able to book wherever they wanted and widespread abuse of the type that Engines talks of. (No point denying it!). The rates for this place were based on taking every meal in the place even though there was a cheap Pizzaria down the road. For some strange reason, the CAOC at 5ATAF was very popular for visits and overnight stops. ;)

It is human nature that if the rules allow it, people will adopt the maximum. If you give someone a £26 allowance for meals, they will spend it, If you give them a daily rate, they will have a burger and keep the money!:E

For me, I was personnaly very grateful, having lived in a bunk on a boat for some years to be given a taste of the 'RAF method' if even only for a short time but, it is an example of why the MOD is in such the financial state it is today. I was for a time, a Millionaire (days of the Lira).:cool:

As an aside, if you are ever in that part of Italy, I thoroughly recommend the place. Vicenza is so much less touristy than Verona and within easy reach of Venice. Now if I get saving on my civvy salary, I may one day be able to take Mrs W there as well.:ok:

[Uncle Ginsters]

I think in this instance it comes down to cost and requisite timelines - the decision to use HOTAC for ELLAMY was not a decision made by the crews, that's for sure. Before they had left the UK, teams from higher agencies had scoped the tasking and, in the required budget and timeframe, HOTAC was the only option.

There are many reasons why this is the case, mostly down to all of Defence being stretched in HERRICK and being cut too far. The Air Transport, MCSU and other support elements required to deploy and support this op were simply not available without cutting down the footprint to the absolute minimum.

Yes, in an ideal world we can have Plan A in the draw ready to action and deploy for a small- to medium-scale op in toto. But we need to face facts that we can't fully deploy Plan A for something the size of ELLAMY alongside a commitment the size of HERRICK on so many levels.

It's too easy to sling the mud. And yes, over the years many crews have portrayed an overly princessish neediness (sometimes justified, sometimes not). We all do what we do and,ultimately, we'll all do it however we're told but am I the only one who finds this particular line of bickering nothing but toxic? :confused:

[Courtney Mil]

For some strange reason, the CAOC at 5ATAF was very popular for visits and overnight stops.

Careful, Mate. The subject of a nasty P&SS witch hunt. People from the deployed FJ sqns went there because it was in the Op Order and it was the Adminners that made the travel and accomm arrangements.

Also check out RAF QRs of the day. As an example, remember that QRs stated that flights over 2.5 hours duration (civvi) were to be class 2 (Club/Business). Some thought that was wrong. I wasn't convinced it was necessary. But you tell me which QRs were mandatory and which were optional.

[vascodegama]

The best of all this is the fact that MOD pays over the odds for Hotac.From DHRS or whatever in the UK to insisting on paying the middle man overseas , a lot could be saved for the same product.That is why we have budget problems and don't get me started on paying extra for a non-standard item when the standard would do.

[Army Mover]

Going back some time now, but as one of those who frequently had to arrange the accommodation for both crew and pax, the options to use military accommodation overseas was always fully examined, but it was never cheap, the food was often either not suitable, or non-existent at the time we wanted it and one other relevant point, it's not free; the host nation always gets paid at their rates and the costs can be eye-watering for what were very basic facilities. When we did try it, the admin effort involved in taking over and handing back the facilities was phenomenal; the end result was almost always a hotel/motel.

[dalek]

Army Mover

You have hit the nail on the head. Attempts to cut costs on short term detachments or AT stopovers invariably did not work at all, or finished up costing money.
One favourite trick of Command Accounts was to send out a team ahead of a Detachment to negotiate special meal "contract" rates. This team rarely travelled on Military Aircraft, and they did not always travel Economy. And of course, because detachment rules were not in place, they paid themselves the going Foreign Office Rate.
These special meals were always time dependent. You can guess it, quite a lot of flights were planned to operate outside these times. Even when the planning was good many meals were still purchased twice.
The number of times we swapped over from contract to rates to contract to actuals, all because some bright spark of an Accountant wanted to make a name for himself.
Bit like QNH / QFE / QNH / QFE.
Now please don't start me off on that one.